Why issue a rebuttal when you didn't really address any of my previous points? Where do you draw the line? What is the level of invasion of privacy by a giant multinational conglomerate that feels acceptable enough?

P.S. I don't see anything in the Terms of Use that mentions pinpointing your exact geographic location or your book access times.

Those of us disturbed by the extent of Amazon's privacy intrusions have a legitimate and completely obvious grievance. I think it's reasonable to expect that Amazon needn't keep tabs on our every location, when, where, and what we read, the exact text of any notes we write, etc. Are they legally in the clear? Do wireless carriers violate privacy too? Who gives a ****. It doesn't excuse what they are doing. And you can bet that 99.99999% of Kindle owners have no idea of it.

It doesn't excuse what they are doing. And you can bet that 99.99999% of Kindle owners have no idea of it.

Tally me up in the column that has always known they were collecting lots of data... and just didn't (and still don't) give a damn. I expect that 99.999blahblah% number is a lot lower than you think. Not all Kindle owners are dumb enough to buy a product without reading the License Agreement/Terms of Use.

Tally me up in the column that has always known they were collecting lots of data... and just didn't (and still don't) give a damn. I expect that 99.999blahblah% number is a lot lower than you think. Not all Kindle owners are dumb enough to buy a product without reading the License Agreement/Terms of Use.

I expect that 99.999blahblah% number is a lot lower than you think. Not all Kindle owners are dumb enough to buy a product without reading the License Agreement/Terms of Use.

Aside from the fact that the EULA doesn't explicitly mention such 'insignificant' things like location tracking:
A 2001 Privacy Leadership Initiative survey showed that only 3% of customers read privacy policies carefully and 64% only glance or never read such policies.

In 2002, the New York Times reported that only 0.3% of users read Yahoo’s privacy policy in a one month period back in 2001.

A 2006 survey of Facebook users showed that 89% of them admitted that they had never read the privacy policy and 91% were not familiar with the terms of service.

A 2008 survey by the ICO found that 71% did not read or understand privacy policies, that 62% wanted a clearer explanation of how personal information will actually be used, and that 42% believed that the material only existed to justify the selling on of personal details.

In April, 2010, a computer game retailer revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of online shoppers, thanks to a clause in the terms and conditions agreed to by online shoppers ("By placing an order via this Web site . . . you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul.") Almost 90% of customers agreed to the terms and conditions without reading. Those who refused the terms, by the way, were given a £5 gift voucher.

Are you trying to say that people have an excuse for not reading ToS's because people tend to not read ToS's??

I'm saying that just because some of these offensively intrusive methods of spying are vaguely mentioned somewhere in the ToS, it doesn't give a company carte blanche to actively exploit a well-known human weakness. Or to put it another way, just because some people are naive, it doesn't give con artists a valid excuse to defraud them.

Those of us disturbed by the extent of Amazon's privacy intrusions have a legitimate and completely obvious grievance. I think it's reasonable to expect that Amazon needn't keep tabs on our every location, when, where, and what we read, the exact text of any notes we write, etc. Are they legally in the clear? Do wireless carriers violate privacy too? Who gives a ****. It doesn't excuse what they are doing. And you can bet that 99.99999% of Kindle owners have no idea of it.

Feels nice to be among the 0.00001% who know you can turn off those features.

I'm sorry; I chose the 99.99999% number arbitrarily. I think I might have overstated it. Maybe take away a few 9's and you'll have a generous guess of the number of people who understand the extent to which Amazon is gathering personal information. There is no doubt that it is a tiny fraction of owners, and the people who visit this board are among the few. What you read, where you go, at what time, the notes you write, all of this information is cataloged and property of Amazon, and this only became known by hacking the software. It's ridiculous to dispute that very few users are aware of this.

Amazon could be open about it, but they have chosen to hide the fact.

The whole "you can't complain because it's in the the ToS" crap - it's tiring. Whether Amazon covered their ass legally was never a point of the discussion. Most people don't read the terms of service because it isn't worth their time, nor can they necessarily parse dense and confusing legal text. This doesn't make you superior to them. Diap, as you have so smugly made clear, you believe that people should silence their criticism of Amazon if they technically haven't violated the law. This is, in my humble view, 1) irresponsibly dismissive of (ever-increasing) corporate encroachment on personal privacy 2) retarded. That something is legal does not mean it is right or acceptable.